Julie Morgan: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do why there are not many people in the Chamber today; that is in the nature of Private Members' Bills.
	There are many excellent reasons why the voting age should be lowered, all of which are outlined in the pamphlet that I have produced with the "Votes at Sixteen" campaign, entitled "16 for 16: 16 Reasons for Votes at 16". I want to focus my speech on five key arguments. I will discuss the desire for the voting age to be lowered among young people themselves and among the organisations that work with them. What is more, I will discuss why young people have a right to a vote at 16.

Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the reason why turnout among young people has been so low is that it has been low generally, particularly in the last general election? In 1997, the turnout was much higher among 18 to 25-year-olds. Is not the problem essentially that we do not speak the language of young people and therefore fail to engage them in the political process?

Kevan Jones: I follow the argument that there should be voting at 16, because that is in line with other rights that people gain at 16. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the argument that lowering the voting age to 16 would increase turnout does not hold water, because experience in other places where it has been done shows that turnout goes down overall rather than up?

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. The Electoral Reform Society has calculated that if young people voted at the same rates as 18 to 24-year-olds, the percentage turnout would stand still, and if none of them voted it would go down by about 2 per cent. However, I am not introducing the Bill to try to increase turnout but because it is a good way of recognising young people's involvement and what they can do.

Julie Morgan: Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. One of the reasons why I am promoting the Bill is that there is more likelihood that the 16 to 18-year-old group will turn out to vote and will then, we hope, get into the habit of voting, which would boost all turnout rates.

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution.
	In 2004, the Electoral Commission's public consultation on lowering the voting age found that 72 per cent. of respondents favoured a voting age of 16. That consultation attracted huge levels of participation, including nearly 8,000 young people. More recently, Funky Dragon ran a wide-ranging survey that found that 80 per cent. of young people in Wales wanted votes at 16. Subsequently, the Welsh Assembly passed a motion calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16. This change in the voting system could only be achieved at Westminster, but the support in the Assembly was overwhelming, with 44 Members voting for the motion and only four against, and complete cross-party support. It was quite a surprise that only four Members voted against. That gives a good idea of what cross-party support there is for this measure in Wales.
	Young people, their youth councils and youth groups throughout the UK are lobbying their representatives for the right to vote, and I am sure that many Members have been lobbied by young people on the issue. My faith in the ability of young people was strengthened by the event at which I helped to launch the Bill earlier in the week, which I referred to earlier. Young people came from all over the country to attend the meeting and spoke eloquently and enthusiastically. Listening to them, I wondered how we could possibly not give them the vote. These young people were impassioned and determined, firmly making their case, and I was pleased that people came from Wales, particularly from Cardiff, where my constituency is. It was great to hear young people speaking for themselves from the platform, and not being spoken for by us—it was a refreshing change.
	I came away thinking about other fights that we have had, such as women's fight for suffrage. A lot of people argued against that as well, but when we look back it seems ridiculous that women could not vote. I hope that one day, when 16-year-olds can vote, we will look back and think how ridiculous it was that there was a time when they could not vote. That happens with all changes: when they start, they seem extreme or groundbreaking to some people, but then they become normal. That is what will happen with votes at 16.

Andrew Love: Is my hon. Friend aware that when they introduced votes for women—in 1931, I think—they had to be 30 years and over? It was only subsequently that the age was reduced to 18. Is it not a natural consequence of that movement that the voting age be reduced from 18 to 16?

Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend makes the important point that women were originally only allowed the vote at 30. It was then brought down, and we now hope that it will be brought down again.

Stewart Jackson: On that point, is not the corollary of what the hon. Lady is saying that we tend to view having a vote to elect Members to the House of Commons as political activity, but overlook the fact that many young people are involved in single-issue groups such as the campaign against ID cards, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others? They are engaged and enthused, but not necessarily in respect of having a vote at the age of 16 or 17. Is it not a bit patronising to assume that young people are only interested in having a vote at the earliest possible age, when they are already campaigning on political issues?

Julie Morgan: Young people tell me that they want the vote.
	The crux of my argument is not simply that young people want the vote, although all the evidence coming to me suggests that. I am sure that there are a lot of things that young people may want that we would not agree with, but in this case, there is a strong argument that people aged 16 and 17 have a right to vote. The phrase "no taxation without representation" has been used by many groups struggling for political rights over the years, but it applies no less to 16 and 17-year olds working and paying tax who are denied the vote, because there is no age limit on paying income tax and national insurance. Tax is taken on full or part-time work including tips and bonuses, and the most up-to-date figures show that 548,000 16 and 17-year-olds are in some form or employment.

Julie Morgan: I do not think that that is a valid intervention.
	This House is currently considering new proposals to ensure that all young people receive training or education to the age of 18. However, even then, many 16 and 17-year-olds will continue to work as tax-paying members of society. Even those studying part-time will be able to work more than 20 hours per week and be taxed on that income. Young people should have some say on how that tax is spent. I have been to schools to speak to young people and hear their views—I know that many hon. Members have done this—and I found that they have a range of views about what provision there should be in the area, and about how their local authorities are run. I have been amazed at how political their views are—in a way that I had not expected. Although young people are very involved in single-issue politics, they have strong views on more political things.

Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	I come to the issue of young people in the military. On 1 April 2007, there were 4,560 16 and 17-year-olds serving in the armed forces. In the last financial year, 30 per cent. of all new recruits to the military were under 18 years of age. People can apply to join the British Army at 15 years and seven months, and to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force at 15 years and nine months. While it is Government policy that personnel under the age of 18 should not be deployed on any operations that would see them engaged in hostilities, the normal practice is for recruits to sign up to a four-year contract, meaning that in deciding to join at 16, they are making a decision that could see them deployed in two years' time. If they are old enough to join the armed forces, 16 and 17-year-olds deserve the right to vote for the Government who could decide to send them to war. That is a very important point.
	Notwithstanding those points, preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from expressing their political views through the ballot box denies them their rights. It gives them and the rest of society the impression that young people's views are not valid and that they are not real citizens. One of the ways in which we can show young people that we respect them and that their views are valid is by getting them to vote. If the Government gave young people the vote, it would be a huge step in recognising the contribution that they can make.

Mark Harper: Those in favour of lowering the voting age cite selectively the point about the armed forces. A 16-year-old cannot join the Army without parental permission to do so. That shows that we do not trust 16-year-olds to decide by themselves to join the armed forces, yet those in favour of the proposal never cite that fact.

Julie Morgan: Sixteen-year-olds are in a position whereby they can sign up, however they do it, and can eventually end up in a conflict. That is an important point.

Julie Morgan: I intend to refer to the Isle of Man later. I shall make progress now, or I shall speak for too long. [Hon. Members: "Take your time."] Okay.
	If increasing young people's participation and engagement is a shared aim among hon. Members—I am sure that it is—I am convinced that lowering the voting age would help. Sixteen is the ideal age at which to catch young people and inspire them to take part in the political process, which will then, I believe, become a habit for life. Today's 16-year-olds have had the benefit of systematically studying our democracy and electoral system, and the importance of voting, through compulsory citizenship education, which became part of the national curriculum in 2002. Young people today have had more opportunity to be informed about voting than most current voters, yet they are denied the right to put that knowledge into practice for a further two years at least, and possibly another seven. Lowering the voting age to 16 would allow for a seamless transition from learning about voting, elections and democracy to putting such knowledge into practice.
	Importantly, most 16 and 17-year-olds are in education settings and have the opportunity to discuss issues and to get into the habit of voting. If young people air their views and discuss the process with other members of their class or college, there is much more chance that they will vote. In Wales, the equivalent of citizenship education is the personal and social education framework, which provides an opportunity to learn about active citizenship as part of the curriculum. All that is happening in schools today, so now would seem an ideal time to move towards a younger voting age.

Julie Morgan: I would like to make some progress before I give way again.
	The ability to vote at 16 would bring a relevance and practical application to citizenship education. It would allow us to catch young people at a time in their lives when voter education could be provided for them. Votes at 16 would give young people the experience of voting by 21. Once familiar with the process, they would be much more likely to continue voting for life. Lowering the voting age would not only be good for young people, but would be good for UK democracy as a whole. It would redress the balance of power towards younger people and would be an investment in the health of democracy and the future, by engaging young people in voting for life.
	A bold act such as a lowering the voting age would also be an act befitting this Parliament. As one of the oldest and most respected Parliaments in the world, we have set the pace in the delivery of democracy. When the UK lowered the voting age to 18 in 1969, France, Italy, Canada, Australia and the USA quickly followed. Although we would certainly been seen as progressive if we lowered the voting age to 16, we would not be the first country to do it. Last year, Austria became the first EU state to reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections, and that also applies in five of the 16 German Länder.
	Closer to home, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey have all adopted a voting age of 16. At that time, the Speaker of the House of Keys of the Isle of Man, Steve Rodan, expressed a view that demonstrates a laudable attitude to the subject. His view was simple:
	"It may be that only a few 16 and 17-year-olds will want to vote...But if we can get even a small number engaged at an early age it could lead to a lifetime's active interest in politics."
	I want to associate myself with his words and to associate the House with such a progressive measure.
	We have held debates in the House on the voting age before. I have looked into the numbers, and at one time or another nearly 200 Members have voted for the measure or signed early-day motions in support of it. However, we now have the opportunity to press for serious consideration of votes at 16. Last summer's Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain", set the tone of the debate this year. It spoke of the need to reinvigorate democracy, to put power in the hands of Parliament and the people, and to make a commitment to consider lowering the voting age. The Government are therefore actively considering lowering the voting age.
	Since then, a youth citizens commission has been announced, under Professor Jonathan Tonge, to consult widely on the issue. I welcome those measures and have brought my Bill to the House to focus attention on the process. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will give us more details about the youth citizens commission, how young people are involved in it, whether it has begun its consultation and what the timetable for reporting will be. This is therefore a timely debate, because a body has been set up to look into the very issue that we are discussing. I hope that that body will listen to the voices of the many young people who speak so eloquently and strongly about the subject.

Mark Harper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on securing such a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, although I am afraid that I cannot be quite so complimentary about her choice of subject. She made several references in her speech to sending out messages and signals, but that is not what we are involved in here today. We are involved in considering changing the law and passing legislation, and we need to do that incredibly carefully. When the House changes the law, it needs to be sure that the change will have good consequences and that there is plenty of evidence to support it. Although the hon. Lady's speech contained lots of assertions, I did not hear a lot of detailed evidence to back them up.
	Parliament has already had the opportunity to consider this matter. On 29 November 2005, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams)—he is in his place today and I am sure he will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—introduced his ten-minute Bill, the Representation of the People (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. He obviously had less time to make his points, but his case was similar to that put forward today by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. He mentioned the fact that, at 16, people could join the armed forces, leave school and pay taxes. He also mentioned cigarette manufacturing and addictive habits. He said that the manufacturers believed that if they could get people to take up smoking at 16, those people would be addicted for many years. The hon. Lady seems to be advancing a similar argument, in saying that if we can get people hooked on voting at 16, they will carry on doing it. The reason that I mention that is that the Government have decided that 16-year-olds are not old enough to make a decision about buying cigarettes, and that they need to be 18 before they can do so.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Voting is indeed a very good habit, and smoking is a very bad one. The point that I was making was that if the Government—and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North—do not believe that a 16-year-old is capable of deciding whether or not to purchase a packet of cigarettes, I do not see how they can simultaneously believe that such a person is able to make a decision about who should govern their country.

Mark Harper: I am sort of grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he listens to my remarks a little later, he will hear me set out the reasons why I do not believe that we should do so. I listen carefully to the views of 16 and 17-year-olds—and, indeed, of much younger children—when I visit schools in my constituency, as I am sure all hon. Members do. However, that does not mean that I think that children should be given the right to vote. I believe that that right should come along when we decide that they are adults.

Mark Harper: That is absolutely true. I would have been very relaxed about reducing the voting age to the age of majority; however, in the past the argument was not merely about the voting age but about the age at which people could do a number of other things. It is broadly accepted, although there are discrepancies, which I shall mention later, that people stop being children and become adults at the age of 18, and I think we should stick to that line, otherwise there will be no logical reason for setting the voting age at 16. Once it ceased to be associated with becoming an adult, there would be no logical argument against giving the vote to 14-year-olds, 12-year-olds or 10-year-olds.
	I am sure that if we were to reduce the voting age to 16, the age that has been chosen on this occasion, a campaign would be launched by politically aware 14-year-olds, and there would be no logical reason to say no to them. At present, however, it is clear that we connect voting with becoming an adult, and I think that that is how things should stay.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) omitted to provide the factual evidence for which I asked in my first intervention. I asked whether any opinion polling of 16 to 18-year-olds had ever produced the finding that voting at 16 was the No. 1 issue of voting-related salience for that particular cohort, as opposed to other issues that are replicated across the older voting population. I suspect that my hon. Friend will tell me that the answer to that question is no.

Greg Knight: I hesitate to say what I am about to say, because I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but would he not accept, on reflection, that the argument he was making before that last intervention in respect of the lack of perceived demand among 16-year-olds was a fairly weak one? Are we here just to follow public opinion, or are we here to give leadership and to make a change where we think it should be made?

Lynne Featherstone: Given that the hon. Gentleman is against this proposal, what is the nub of his belief that young people should not have the vote? Could he elucidate what it is about 16 and 17-year-olds that he thinks makes them incapable or not worthy of having the vote?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady tries to put words into my mouth, and I am not going to allow them to remain there. Her making that comment gives me a good opportunity to dwell for a moment on the language. As I have mentioned once or twice, when we talk about those who are younger than 18 we are actually talking about children; we are not talking about young people. Everyone has been in favour of that approach, apart from on occasion. I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North used the words "young people". We are actually talking about the difference between being a child and being an adult. Clearly there is a gradation in people's experience, maturity and ability to make decisions, but the law must set a point. There has to be a point at which we decide that people who are able to take certain decisions will not take those decisions. The law in this country broadly says that someone becomes an adult when they are 18, and with that comes a range of responsibilities. Other age limits are set for things, and I shall go through them later in remarks—if I am ever allowed to get there.
	By saying that someone becomes an adult at 18 and someone below that age is a child, we are not, in any sense, disparaging children; we are simply saying that a line has to be drawn. Let us follow the hon. Lady's argument to its logical conclusion. If we were to move the line for voting to 16, would we not implicitly be saying that there was something not worthy or not appropriate about 14 and 15-year-olds voting? There would be no logical reason not just to drop the voting age all the way down to zero. The fact is that there must be a line somewhere, and wherever it is drawn there will be people on the wrong side of it who have the maturity to take such a decision. The right place for that line to stay is at 18.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend needs to exercise a degree of scepticism about the comments made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I believe that it is still Liberal Democrat policy to allow 16-year-olds to have unfettered access to pornography. They might want to intervene to discuss that. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that from time to time the House has to make a value judgment—a sanction—as to what it is appropriate to allow young people and children to access. We make the value judgments on things such as video certification, access to credit and the purchase of alcohol, and they are enshrined in law. I cannot see why we should suspend that template when we consider making a value judgment on allowing people to exercise their democratic franchise in an election.

Mark Harper: I am getting some nods, which suggests that I am right. I am therefore astounded that only four Liberal Democrats are in their places—there were not many more in the Lobby earlier—given that we are discussing a Bill that is official Liberal Democrat party policy. Clearly, even they are not very committed to this policy, otherwise the whole party, such as it is, before the next general election, would have been here to support it.

Andrew Love: I submit that the reason why young people are urged to stay on in education is not related to their ability to be responsible or their maturity, but to their needs as individuals and society's need for a better educated work force. I do not buy the hon. Gentleman's other argument. The nub of the argument is whether society is placing greater responsibilities on young people because of their earlier maturity and whether that should be extended to the voting age.

Alistair Burt: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the dangers of a vote may not be immediately apparent, they are real? One of the reasons why the Labour party reneged on its pledge to offer a referendum on the Lisbon treaty was its fear of the result of that vote. Votes can be dangerous in some cases, otherwise the Government might have honoured the pledge that they made to the British people and allowed that vote.

Kevan Jones: I am not sure what experience my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has in binge voting at elections, but does the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) agree that, if we were to reduce the voting age to 16 and increase the number of things that people could do at 16—he refers to driving—a lot of disenchanted 16 year olds would be voting?

Mark Harper: I am very grateful for your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that you said, "at any length", so may I deal with that point briefly? The Minister would be right, except of course for the fact that the Government promised such a referendum in our parliamentary democracy. Of course, if they had not promised one, it would have been perfectly in order for the House to have taken the decision. However, following your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will move on.

Lynne Jones: On the point about at which age people can start to do new things, one of the reasons why I support the Bill is that 16 to 18-year-olds are naturally interested in trying out new things. Once they do, they often get into the habit of engaging in those things. Voting is a very commendable habit to get into, whereas perhaps smoking and drinking to excess are not such commendable habits.

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady will not tempt me down the path of discussing which out of activities that young people get up to they then develop a habit for, which they do not and which are preferable and which are not. I will try to stick more closely to my arguments.

Mark Harper: No. Quite right; we do not and we should not, but my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough referred to at least one civic duty—serving on juries—that we take away from people who have accumulated a lifetime's experience. I do not want to get drawn into too much detail about that end of the age spectrum, but such examples make the point that the House and Parliament in general make laws about age cut-offs, which are always unfortunate for those who fall on the wrong side of them. That said, we need cut-offs at some point.
	Moving on briefly, so that I can at least turn one more page of my speech, when I spoke against the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bristol, West—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North about the younger people's views—I drew attention to the fact that, at Speech house in my constituency, which is the home of debate in Forest of Dean, we had a debate in 2005, during democracy week, when a number of local sixth-formers met in the Verderer's court, which is an historic home of debate in the forest. The Royal Forest of Dean college, Wyedean school and Newent community schools sent students to debate exactly this issue. It was interesting that, when they took a vote afterwards, even in audience made up entirely of 16 to 18-year-olds, there was a 50:50 split. So even among the target age group, there is not a clear view that they want such a change. Indeed, powerful arguments were advanced by those students to explain that they did not want that change for some of the reasons that have been adduced so far this morning and for those that I am sure will be referred to later. It is interesting that even those who would benefit from the proposal do not think it right that the voting age should be changed.

Mark Harper: That may or may not be the point, but it is not really the crux of my argument, which is that voting should be tied to becoming an adult. That age should be set at 18. As soon as that link is shifted and broken, there is no logical age on which to settle. The age of 16 would then just be a staging post. Certainly, the opinion polling evidence that I will quote later shows that most people in this country think that the voting age should stay at 18.
	To conclude the first part of my remarks about the debate on the ten-minute Bill, it is worth reminding the House of the decision that Parliament took when that matter was pressed to a Division by the late Eric Forth and me. The House divided Ayes 128, and Noes 136. The House therefore made a decision, albeit not an overwhelming one, but it was a decision reached when rather more Members were present than are today, to make it clear that it did not want to make the change.
	Just as an aside, I was grateful on that occasion that my friend the late Eric Forth—he and I were both Tellers—gave me the opportunity at a relatively early stage in my career to be a Conservative Teller who got to read out the winning result in a vote, which is something that, sadly, many Opposition Members have not had the opportunity to do since 1997. Perhaps we may be a little closer to having the opportunity to do so somewhat more frequently in the future.
	I was confirmed in the rightness of my decision by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy)—I beg forgiveness from any Scot if I pronounced that constituency slightly incorrectly—who was the then leader of the Liberal Democrats and was sitting in the position now occupied by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman. As I walked past to deliver the vote, I heard him say from a sedentary position that the dark forces of Conservatism had struck again. At that moment, I knew that I had done exactly the right thing.
	As I have outlined what happened the last time that the House discussed this matter, it is probably worth just going through, to the extent that we have not done so already in the nature of that exchange, some of the arguments that are adduced by those who want to support the Bill and to reduce the age for voting and then summarise some of the arguments that have not yet been mentioned by those who are against doing so. The early-day motion—I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North mentioned it—cited that the most prominent argument for giving the right to vote to 16-year-olds is
	"reconnecting the generation of young people with politics and democracy in the UK."
	That was one of the 20 proposals that the Liberal Democrats included in the paper, "Real Democracy in Britain", which they published in July last year, allegedly to strengthen Britain's democracy by reducing the voting age. Most of the arguments made in support of that point have been covered briefly this morning; they are about being able to join the armed forces, get married, legally have sex, leave education and pay tax. It was argued that because 16-year-olds could do all those things legally, they were capable of making rational, responsible choices and should therefore be able to vote. A little later, I will consider some of those arguments in detail and demonstrate why those rights, which people gain at 16, are qualified, and why the case is not as the proponents have argued.

Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he thinks that people under the age of 18 are children; he has called them that on a couple of occasions in his speech. Does he think that no one should have sex until the age of 18?

Mark Harper: We are being very picky. Let me bring in the UN convention on the rights of the child, which was proposed and drafted by UNICEF and has been ratified by the United Kingdom. It says:
	"a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years".
	UNICEF says:
	"In 1989, world leaders decided that children"—
	that is the word used—
	"needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not."
	When I was talking about language earlier with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, I said that it is not pejorative to call someone a child, not an adult. We call people below the age of 18 children and give them a different legal status until they become an adult. It is not a pejorative term; it is simply a matter of fact.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I look forward to him elaborate on that point later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Another argument has been made by those who support the Bill, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North dwelt on it at some length in her opening speech. She suggested that if we did not give young people, meaning 16 and 17-year-olds, the vote, it meant that we could not engage with them. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire dealt with that argument very well. I am sure that I am typical of Members of Parliament, in that I visit primary and secondary schools in my constituency, and a number of youth projects and other organisations that work with children and young people. I am sure that all Members of the House do that in the course of their work. I started off in this job in 2005; I was well aware that it was likely that those aged 13 and upwards would, at the next general election, whenever that comes—the sooner the better, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire said—vote on whether they wished me to remain their Member of Parliament.
	I think that most Members of Parliament take seriously the requirement that we should visit even those who are much younger, and who are at primary school. We should discuss issues not just with the staff, but with the children. If hon. Members present have ever been grilled and put through the wringer by a school council, even of 10-year-olds, they will know that the council members are good at marshalling their facts and can hold a good debate, but I do not think that they should get the vote—and neither do they. However, if we separate the right to vote from the age of adulthood, we have no logical reason not to give them the vote.

Nigel Evans: To extend it further, that argument would mean that Members of Parliament would not take any notice of any members of the public who were going to vote against them. That is clearly not the case. We know that thousands of people, unbelievably, vote against us at each general election but once we are MPs, we are committed to represent them all equally, whether they voted for us or not, and whether or not they are under the voting age.

Mark Harper: I am perfectly content with the Government's proposals to set up a commission, although I would be interested to know how much it will cost the taxpayers, hard-pressed as they are at the moment. I am perfectly content if the commission wants to carry out some investigations and I am content to look at its recommendations. I never say that I will take people's recommendations in advance of their being made. One thing that voters of all ages expect MPs to do is to use their judgment and consider the merits of the case and the arguments and evidence from all sources. To say in advance that one will listen to the views of a certain group and follow them regardless is not very wise. The idea of the commission is perfectly sensible, and I am sure that the Minister will outline the remit of the commission and how it will conduct its work. I know that the chairman has been announced, and it will interesting to see what conclusions it comes up with after consulting widely.

Kevan Jones: May I say how pleased I am to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper)? He covered a lot of ground and was generous in taking interventions. That was helpful, as it allowed us to prise out some of the arguments that we face today.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on promoting this Bill. I steered a private Member's Bill successfully through the House during the last Parliament, and I know the amount of hard work that goes into the preparation for these debates. Credit has to go to her for the cogent and strong way in which she put forward her arguments.
	I want to concentrate on a few areas. The first is the history of the subject, and where we are today. The second concerns the international comparisons. The third is a broader issue, which is not only about the voting age but about how to engage people in the debate.
	Clearly, there are strong views on either side of the argument for reducing the voting age to 16, as there were in 1969 when the Representation of the People Act reduced the age from 21 to 18. One could say that that heralded the change. I do not come at the subject with strong views either way. I feel that if we reduced the age to 16—this point has already been made—we might have another attempt to reduce it to 15 or even lower. We need to be careful that we do not end up with an annual debate.

Kevan Jones: There would be. I am possibly a bit more reactionary than the hon. Gentleman. I would not want this Chamber to be used by anyone who has not been elected; they should not be able to sit on these Benches if they have not been elected. The Chamber should not be used as some type of Chamber to be hired out to anyone who wants to come and play at being a parliamentarian, although I support the work that the UK Youth Parliament is doing, because it raises awareness of not only the activities of this House but local government and other things.
	One argument for reducing the voting age to 16 is about consistency: people can do other things at 16 so we should reduce the voting age to 16. Some of those other things have been mentioned: the right to leave home, to join the armed forces or receive social security benefits. However, I should like to clarify the issue about the armed forces. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Defence for seven years. In the previous Parliament, our Committee held an inquiry on the duty of care for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Army. People may be able to join the Army at 16, but their rights and abilities to do things are, rightly, quite tightly controlled. The parental responsibility is with the parent or, for those people who have left care to join the armed forces, with the armed forces. I do not think that it is a strong enough argument to say, "Because you can do these things, you should reduce the voting age to 16."
	We are getting a little schizophrenic in our approach to age. Earlier I mentioned the fact that we are increasing the age at which people can do things. I represent a rural constituency, and I take the point that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean made about raising the driving age, which would create a lot of difficulties in rural communities, although I support not only making provisional licences tougher, but, once people get their licences, imposing more restrictions on them. Therefore, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot argue for a reduction in the age at which people can vote for people to come to this House and then argue that they are not responsible enough to drive, use air weapons and everything else.

Mark Harper: One welcome change relatively recently is the move to equalise the age at which one can vote and the age at which one can stand as a candidate for the House. I support that change: it is sensible for those two things to be drawn together. One danger of this move is that, if we were to reduce the voting age, we would again set up that disconnect where we said that people were old enough to choose Members of the House, but not old enough to be Members of the House. We would end up with either that disconnect or pressure building for 16-year-olds to be elected to the House. That would not be welcome, although I support equalising the age at 18.

Eleanor Laing: I will help the hon. Gentleman with his statistics. An excellent 19-year-old woman was elected to Epping Forest district council just a few weeks ago, and she will be an excellent councillor.

Andrew Love: The first question in every school that I visit is: how much is a Member of Parliament paid? When that happens, the teachers get very embarrassed and say, "We told them not to ask that question," which is, of course, the reason why the children asked it. Has my hon. Friend shared my experience of always being pleasantly surprised by the maturity of the children, even those who are much younger than 16, and by the sophisticated questions that they ask their public representatives?

Mark Harper: It is interesting to consider the Electoral Commission's report, which concluded that the voting age should not be changed. It stated:
	"the fundamental issue for young people seems to be that their views are regarded as important and are considered properly by public policy makers,"—
	that is, us—
	"not that the particular age at which they can vote...should be lowered."
	That indicates that the solution that will engage young people in politics lies not in changing the law, but with us and how we conduct ourselves in our constituencies and elsewhere—listening to young people and taking them seriously, but not necessarily changing the age at which they can vote.

Kevan Jones: May I say yes and no to my hon. Friend? When I was at a secondary school a couple of weeks ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson), we spoke to a group of youngsters about developing world issues and about Burma, which had recently been in the news, and they were very passionate and forceful in what they said. I come across such young people all the time who see their role, in arguing and making their presence felt to Government on issues such as climate change, not necessarily in terms of the voting system but of getting involved in campaigning groups and activities, where they think that they can make a bigger contribution. If that then sparks their interest in party political politics or in getting involved in the political process, that is great. I am sure there are examples on both sides of the House of people who have joined political parties because of the campaigning organisations that they got involved in.
	The hon. Member for Forest of Dean referred to the Electoral Commission report. I have to say that I do not hold the Electoral Commission in high esteem; I think that it was one of the mistakes that we have made as a Government. The intention was right—to have an independent body to scrutinise elections—but it has lost its focus on what it should be doing. Given that it spends £30 million a year, I am not sure that the taxpayer gets good value for money. In 2003, the commission conducted a review of voting age. The consultation, which took place that summer, was addressed to a whole host of groups, and the questions that it asked were very relevant. For example:
	"Do you think that lowering the voting age, or allowing young candidates to stand for election, might encourage people to take part in elections?"
	That goes back to the question of voter turnout. It continues:
	"Do you think that lowering the voting age, or the age of standing as a candidate, would increase the level of trust which young people have in politicians?...If you are a young person, teacher or parent—in your experience, is citizenship education changing young people's knowledge and interest in elections and democracy?"
	That tries to determine whether young people are being engaged in the process through citizenship in schools. Then the commission asked:
	"Do you want to see a change in the current minimum age for voting (18)?...Do you want to see a change in the current minimum age for standing as a candidate (21)?"
	We should remember that this was prior to the decision to reduce the former to 18. Finally:
	"Would you advocate the same minimum age for all levels of elections in the UK?...If the minimum age for standing as an election candidate at UK elections were to be reduced, what age do you think it should be reduced to? Why?"
	There is a legitimate debate to be had. Today's debate is about whether to reduce the age to 16 and there are some international comparisons. For instance, people can vote aged 15 in Iran, and if we are to carry out a consultation, as the Electoral Commission did, we need to take into account the views of people who argue that the age should be lower than 16. The survey asked whether people would advocate the same minimum age for all levels of elections in the UK. That review engaged the views of not just young people but a whole host of organisations and groups. The commission's findings were published in April 2004. The Government have now embarked on another consultation, and I shall come to that in a minute, but it is worth looking at the conclusions of the Electoral Commission's report.
	The commission recommended that the minimum age for all levels of voting at public elections in the UK should remain at 18, and adds, as the commission always does, "for the time being"—a bit of a caveat. It went on, as most documents from the commission do, to be vague and woolly without giving precise advice. It qualified further its recommendation, clearly wanting to sit on the fence and not upset individuals, by saying:
	"However, circumstances may change the context significantly over the next few years. In particular, citizenship teaching may improve the social awareness and responsibility of young people. There may also (perhaps partly in response to this) be a wider debate about the general age of majority that would better inform consideration of the individual's age-based rights. We propose further research on social and political awareness of those around 18 with a view to undertaking a further review of the minimum age for electoral participation in future."
	That is another thing that the Electoral Commission is very good at—keeping itself employed by ensuring that it conducts further research in a few years' time. The document continues:
	"The Electoral Commission would therefore expect to undertake a further formal review of the minimum voting age within five to seven years of this report. We would encourage the Government to consider in the meantime initiating a wider review of the age of majority, given the length of time that has passed since the last one."
	That concerns me because the Electoral Commission is getting involved in something that it should not be getting involved in—the age of majority. It deals with issues concerning elections, not other things, and the Government should sometimes be more forceful with the commission and tell it to keep its nose out of things that it should not be involved with.
	The review has been initiated. I am not clear why, and I do not see why the Electoral Commission argued that the process should take place in the next five to seven years—do not ask me why it is five. The only reason it gives as evidence for that is the fact that the teaching of citizenship would somehow change the perception that young people in schools have. That process has been going on for quite a long time. I do not know why it went out of fashion in schools—most used to teach issues of citizenship in general studies, and I first learned about this place in such lessons. The commission's argument, in stating that the arbitrary five to seven years should be the reason for having a review, is pretty weak.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the report that preceded the report he is quoting from, which is the July 2002 Electoral Commission report entitled "Voter engagement and young people". It found that the underlying reasons for low turnout among young people were complex and multi-faceted, such as disillusionment with parties, lack of interest in politics, feeling that they as individual voters made no impact and not knowing enough about politics. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a mature democracy—although it is anathema to say it in the House—some people, particularly the young, will just not be interested in politics?

Kevan Jones: The position varies. I agree with my hon. Friend that getting on to the electoral register is difficult in some parts of the United States, especially in parts of the rural south. However, even here, it is difficult to get people to register to vote, despite best efforts. If the Conservative Government did one thing to decimate electoral registers, it was introducing the poll tax. People simply took themselves off the register.  [Interruption.] That might have been dishonest, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) says from a sedentary position, but many people did it to avoid the nonsense of the poll tax. To a large extent, we are still recovering from that.
	I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North because the ultimate decision is not for some commission, based on the notion that if we get enough academics together, we will somehow come up with the Ark of the Covenant or the answer to the problem. At the end of the day, the decision is a political one. The issue certainly needs to be reviewed in every Parliament—I am quite happy for that to happen—but ultimately it will be down to right hon. and hon. Members in this place to make the decision.
	Too often these days—I have to say that my Government and my party are a bit too used to this—we think that if we park off decisions to independent commissions, they will come up with the right decision that will be easier to make. I am a bit old fashioned, however. I think that politicians should take decisions—sometimes unpopular decisions—and not think that they can hide them behind quangos or people who profess to have great knowledge about a subject. It is clear that some of the people behind the Electoral Commission's reports and advice have never fought a local election or do not understand local election law.
	Reference was made earlier to international comparisons. My hon. Friend mentioned a few examples. Does the situation vary throughout the world? Yes, it does. The country with the lowest voting age is Iran, where it is 15. It would surprise many people to hold Iran up as a wonderful bastion of parliamentary democracy, but people should look at Iranian democracy a little more closely, rather than reading some of the headlines in the newspapers.

Andrew Love: I was going to intervene earlier to say that it was a tautology to mention unpopularity and politicians in the same sentence. On international comparisons, does my hon. Friend agree that the thrust in the past five to 10 years has been towards younger age ranges for voting than previously? In a sense, we might be being left behind by international opinion on this issue.

Kevan Jones: Perhaps the reason why personation in Northern Ireland is not the issue that it used to be has less to do with individual registration than with the change in politics and the peace process. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) was here earlier, and he has told stories of people in the 1970s and 1980s changing their clothes in order to go into the polling station to vote several times. He described it as "binge voting".
	I think that individual registration would act as a disincentive, and that we should consider best practice. I also think that we should devote the necessary resources to registration, which we do not at present. I know from talking to London colleagues that in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, the churn and turnover of the population is horrendous in comparison with what happens in more stable communities such as mine.

Kevan Jones: Will the Conservative party's leadership possibly close down that organisation, as it did with the Federation of Conservative Students, when it took views that, frankly, were not only embarrassing to the party but diametrically opposed to those of Front-Benchers?

Nigel Evans: I was also a member of the Federation of Conservative Students, which was closed down. My hon. Friend makes the point that, when Norman Tebbit closes down an organisation because he says that it is too right wing, we ought to listen.

Andrew Love: For many years, I was an active member of the Transport and General Workers Union. For one of its weekend conferences, it tried to book the Royal Agricultural College, but for a long time, the college would not have the union. Then the union discovered the reason why: the Federation of Conservative Students had been there and had doused the place, so the college would not give anyone the privilege of making use of the place. My question relates to the hon. Lady's point about young people being engaged in politics. She said that Conservative Future was the fastest-growing organisation of politically involved young people, but she did not tell us whether that growth consisted of people in the 16 to 18 age range, or whether the real growth is among people aged 18 and above.

Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we must get on with the argument. I will happily give way to him in a few minutes. I would not argue that 16-year-olds are not mature, able, or responsible in outlook or intellectual development. Of course they are. Many 16-year-olds are writing essays, doing exams, and taking part in discussions on historical, political or moral issues to a very high intellectual standard, and they have a real understanding of democracy, the political process and issues that matter in our country and in our world today. I take as one example the Epping Forest schools debating competition, which I organise, and which we hold every year in my constituency. Every year, without exception, young people aged 14 to 18 take part in those debates, and every single one of them is well-informed and well able to engage in the political process. However, that does not mean that they ought to have the right to vote before they reach the age of majority.
	Out of sheer respect for the democratic system, it is right that young people should serve a sort of apprenticeship before they can become a full citizen and have a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) said during his excellent, wide-ranging speech, the point about 16 and 17-year-olds is that, barring any tragedy that might occur, they become 18-year-olds in a fairly short time.
	The debate does not have parallels with other issues about rights, such as the campaign of the suffragettes or of anyone else for voting rights, despite some Liberal Democrats' earlier attempts to suggest that it does. The issue is not at all similar—it is quite different. I strongly supported the Equality Act 2006, and spoke from the Front Bench in support of it on many an occasion when it was before the House. I strongly believe in equality in every aspect of our lives in the UK today, but we cannot make people's age equal. Sadly, by the forward movement of nature and time people become a year older every year. Time flows relentlessly, and so 16 and 17-year-olds become 18-year-olds, who become 25-year-olds, who become 40-year-olds and so it goes on. We cannot hold back time, nor can we equalise people's ages for the sake of some political gimmick.

Mark Harper: The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) was used a number of times during my speech. No one who is against the Bill has made any negative comments about younger people—I have been here since the beginning of the debate. Unless the right to vote were to begin at birth, there must be a point at which people are eligible to vote, which means that some people will be disappointed. How ever intellectually qualified 16 or 17-year-olds may be, if the voting age were changed to 16, we could all wheel out examples—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made this point in his speech—of 14-year-olds, and perhaps even of 12-year-olds, who are intellectually capable of voting. There is no logical place to stop once one separates being an adult and being able to vote. That is a simple concept, and advancing straw man arguments that no one on this side of the argument has made does not help the debate.

Eleanor Laing: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make progress, because many hon. Members want to speak and time is getting on.
	As we teach our children when they are young, and as we suggest to young people as they approach majority, there are many things in life that we value all the more because they are worth waiting for, and exercising one's vote is one of those things. In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), I have mentioned a young councillor, Rebecca Cohen, who is 19 and who was elected to Epping Forest district council just a few weeks ago. At 19, she is well able to take on that position, which she is doing extremely well. However, I do not think that she could have done it properly at 16 or 17. Having reached the maturity of 18, and having taken a little longer to gain some experience of the world, she is fulfilling that post very well at 19. None of us is trying to stop young people from becoming fully engaged, which we want to encourage at all times. Earlier, a Liberal Democrat Member suggested that if we do not change the law, we are saying that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are incapable or unworthy. Just as I have argued with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead that they are certainly not too ignorant, they are not incapable or unworthy.
	My main argument against the Bill concerns the question of rights. Correctly, we often discuss rights in this House, but whenever we create a right, there must be a corresponding responsibility. If there is no responsibility, then there is no right, because rights without responsibilities are meaningless. By giving people the right to vote, we are also conferring on them the burden of the responsibility to vote. I argue that 16 and 17-year-olds are gradually given plenty of responsibilities as they move on through life and grow up. It is not right to pile on all those responsibilities at once. Children of younger age groups have to be protected and 16 and 17-year-olds still have to be nurtured and helped along the way while they gradually make the transition from childhood to adulthood.
	There is a lot of evidence from recent polling and the Electoral Commission's recent review to show that there is absolutely no need to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. I was interested in the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, but she did not produce any piece of evidence that made me doubt my position for one moment. I thought that she might cite evidence that might make some of us think that the issue should be pursued, but she did not.

Harry Cohen: I have said that there are many inconsistencies. People are not allowed to take drugs at any age. Does that mean that one is never an adult and can never have the vote? The inconsistencies need to be tackled. A good point was made earlier about what is best for public health.
	A general indicator of adulthood should be the age at which people have the vote. People can leave school, go to work, pay taxes, join the armed forces, get married and have sex the age of 16. I was worried by the implications of the argument that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean presented and I intervened on him. We rightly have strong laws about sex with children, who could be taken into care if they have sex. However, according to the principle that he enunciated, if one is a child at 16 and 17, people could get married and be done for child sex.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman has made that point a number of times today. However, everyone on the other side of the argument has said that 16 seems to be a reasonable point at which to be able to choose to do some of the things that are not harmful, and potentially beneficial, for 16-year-olds to do, as opposed to some of the more harmful things, which are left until the age of 18.
	I am hoping to persuade hon. Members that not giving 16-year-olds the vote contradicts the aim of much public policy that is targeted at this age group. We have heard about some of the responsibilities, burdens and freedoms of adulthood that are conferred at the age of 16. These arguments have been well rehearsed, but they do not lose impact through repetition. Some of the greatest adventures in life begin at 16, if young people can wait that long; not all do. We judge people of that age to be mature enough to make big choices. This is not just about getting married and having babies, although I can think of no greater responsibility than bringing a child into this world. It is also about safer sex and about young people's own sexuality. With their parents' consent, they can select a partner for life, get married or enter into a civil partnership. We want them to lay the foundations for their future at that age. They can choose their A-level and AS-level subjects, or their professional qualifications.
	I would like to correct something that was said by Conservative Members, who said that it was Liberal Democrat policy that young people should not be able to join the Army until they were 18. That is erroneous. We take the same view as the Government and the law of the land, which is that a young person may join the Army at 16 but should not be sent to the front line until the age of 18.
	We acknowledge the potential independence and self-determination to which 16-year-olds are entitled, according to the law as it stands. They can leave home, take up full-time employment and, as we have heard, pay tax. As for the activities that are restricted to 18-year-olds, I certainly think it would be unwise to allow people under 18 to enter into legal and financial contracts such as credit agreements. Embarking on binding agreements without the necessary wherewithal, or without the ability to appreciate the consequences, can have significant results. My own children have, at that age, mastered half the equation—borrowing the money—but not the other half—paying it back.

Mark Harper: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I am certainly well aware of the fact that young people who are 16 and 17 at the moment— indeed, this applied when I was first elected—will be able to cast a vote at the next general election if it is not held for two years. I do not know what he does, but I go out there and meet as many of them as possible, and I try to give a good impression. I suggest that, if he is not doing that, he better do so or he might not find himself coming back here.

Andrew Love: Lots of comments have been made about what might or might not happen in a year or two. No doubt, when we get closer to the time, there will be some very sturdy and robust debates about that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I go out to try to engage with young people, because they are the future generation, and if they do not have the vote now, as he says, they will have it in the future. They are a harbinger of changing societal attitudes, and we as politicians have a duty to learn from them, because that will help us to decide on issues in the future.
	I want to mention two other consequences. Manifestos will begin to reflect some of the issues that are particularly pertinent to young people. Over time, we will see a strengthening of our commitments to the environment and to third-world poverty issues, to take two examples, because they are of great concern to young people. I do not say that that is good or bad. What is undeniably good is that we will place on the agenda the issues on which there is perhaps not enough emphasis. That will be one of the real consequences of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people will take an interest in the manifestos that we produce and will make sure that we live up to the commitments that we make in them.
	There is a lot of talk about denying the vote, and people have asked how we can deny it. I want to repeat some of the arguments, because they are important. I will not go over the issue of taxes and national insurance; that has been covered fully. However, there is the issue of marriage to consider. People can get married at 16. It is perhaps the single most important decision that anyone will take in their lifetime. If that is not the most important decision, perhaps it is the decision to have children, and again, people can decide to do that at the age of 16. That is a momentous decision for young people to take, and it seems to override almost any other decision that they may take.

Mark Harper: For clarity, it is not the case that if a 16-year-old joins the armed forces with their parent's consent they are then tied in. In the first six months of service, they have a statutory right to discharge, and after six months all under-18-year-olds can be discharged if they are unhappy with their service. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is not factually correct. There are some clear protections for those under 18 who join the armed forces. Clear and significant guidelines are provided to commanding officers about the level of care that they have to provide for those under 18 to recognise the special position that they are in.

Andrew Love: I defer to the superior knowledge of my two colleagues in the House, and I support the changes that have been made as a result of the events at Deepcut barracks, which had to be addressed. I fully support what has happened. I do not think that that gets away from my essential point: those people are taking essential decisions for their life at the age of 16.
	I want to conclude, because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate—and it is the debate that is really important. I think, if I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, that that is the greatest contribution that she has made: getting the debate to happen. She mentioned, and I underscore it, that the Electoral Commission will carry out a further review this year, which will be important. The commission that the Minister will speak about will conclude next year and we will have a further debate. Those are opportunities for us to develop the discussion that we have had today. I am confident that we are moving in the right direction as societal attitudes change and we recognise the contribution that 16 and 17-year-olds make to our society.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend has made a typically eloquent intervention.
	I move on to the issue of turnout. It seemed strange that at the outset of this debate, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said that in proposing the Bill, she was not in the business of driving up turnout. It seems a little disingenuous to take that view. It is all very well having warm words and buzzwords about engaging young people and involving people in the process, but there is no point in having all those aspirations if there is no demonstrable way to measure that involvement. As the academic David Denver, among many others, has made clear, the involvement of young people—it is certainly the experience of those between 18 and 24—is that they register and do not vote. There is no evidence that there would not be a commensurate decrease in turnout if 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote. It is important that we realise that. Historically, when young people were not permitted to vote until they were 21, there were very high turnouts—84 per cent. in the 1950 election, for instance.

Greg Clark: The point of the arguments that are being made is that no one will be corralled into voting—they will have the choice as to whether to do so. People who are motivated to take an interest in the political process will have the opportunity to vote, but by no means will they be compelled to do so.

Stewart Jackson: The slight flaw in my hon. Friend's argument, if I may say so, is that there is no independent evidence to suggest that the natural corollary of the change would be that those young people would vote. The evidence is strongly in the other direction—that they would abstain from voting.
	The political system is primarily about electing, at Government level, Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. I agree with the hon. Member for North Durham that we should not have people popping in to sit here as in a glorified theme park and pontificate as pseudo-Members of Parliament. That is not what we should be encouraging. There is certain sanctity about getting elected among one's peers and being supported by the residents of one's constituency, and we should not undermine that.
	Young people are involved in political issues at all levels, whether saving the whale, campaigning against incinerators or ID cards, or becoming involved in Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace. However, it does not necessarily follow that they assume that they must have a right to vote as a result of that activity. It is a rite of passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean made an important point about having a sense of pride. In 1983, when I first got my vote in the safe Conservative seat, as it then was, of South Thanet—the candidate went on to do other things and took a close interest in penal affairs—I went out and voted and had a sense of great pride in doing so. I was never taught civics or about civic engagement. It comes from family, from background, and from a sense that one can make a contribution.
	Low turnout among young people is about the structural changes that need to take place. Basically, they feel disconnected and that people are not listening to them. They do not feel that the system can benefit them or that it is interested in their lives, whether their gas bill, their transport or their granny's hip operation. That is the real reason—it is not because they feel that they are being deliberately, institutionally disenfranchised by not having the vote at 16.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and he leads me to a similar point. We do young people a disservice if we assume that the only way in which they can make their views known is to have the vote at 16. After a long and detailed debate, we can see that that flies in the face of evidence—the age at which people can drink alcohol, view pornographic material or obtain credit, among other examples. Society makes a judgment, and then this House makes a judgment through legislation on what is appropriate for young people and children.
	I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—I would even say that he is an institution, given that he has been in the House for 25 years, but he had a slip of the tongue. In the course of his comments, he described the particular cohort that he was herding towards the ballot box as "children". Sometimes we have to make a decision about children. They are not all young people, but they are children, and I think that he let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
	 It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	 Debate to be resumed on Friday 13 June.

Order for Second Reading read .
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 To be read a Second  time on Friday 13 June.

Norman Baker: I am pleased to have the opportunity to deal with a matter of considerable importance to a large part of my constituency, namely the application by the doctors' practice in Newick to dispense medicines from their Chailey surgery. The proposal may seem innocuous, but it has led to enormous objections in my constituency. There has been a huge furore and genuine and understandable concern about the implications of the application, were it to be approved.
	I welcome the presence of the Minister and I am sorry that she has been either pulled back to or held in London on a Friday. I am pleased to see her, given her background knowledge.
	Local parish councils, none of which were consulted about the proposals, have set out the concerns. That applies especially to Newick parish council, but Chailey and Fletching parish councils, as well as those in Barcombe, have also expressed concern. There is also a petition, which approximately 2,000 people have signed. That equates roughly to the entire population of Newick—I hope that that demonstrates to the House the seriousness of the matter. If I may, I will hand the petition to the Minister when we have concluded the debate.
	There are two reasons for the major anxieties about the proposal. The first is a genuine concern that the move will drive out of business the existing Lloyds pharmacy in Newick, which is well respected, performs a useful public function, is well liked and is used by people not just in Newick but in nearby villages. The view in the village, which I share, is that if the proposal goes ahead, it will fatally undermine the viability of the chemist. Not only would the village then lose the chemist, but there would be a knock-on effect on the remaining nearby shops, thereby potentially removing all retail outlets from the village, as people use the other outlets when they use the chemist. That is a genuine concern, which perhaps explains why there is such opposition to the proposals in Newick.
	The second reason is a medical reason. In the view of many people—again, I share their view—there will be a diminution of service if the chemist closes. The proposal for the doctor's surgery to be able to dispense medicines from Chailey in no way compensates for the extremely good service currently provided by the chemist both onsite in Newick and remotely, through the free delivery service to nearby villages.
	Let me turn to the comments that have been sent to me by residents, including Chailey parish council. I refer to Chailey in particular because the proposal, ostensibly to improve services, is to have the dispensing of pharmaceuticals at Chailey. One might therefore think, superficially, that people in Chailey would be in favour of it. However, they are totally opposed to the proposal, just as people in Newick are. It is not just those who have a chemist's shop who are opposed, but those who value the remote service provided by Lloyds.
	In Chailey parish alone, there is a residential home for disabled adults, a residential school for disabled children and a development of 24 warden-controlled flats for older people. All those organisations are currently served by the Newick community pharmacy home delivery service. If that service were removed, the burden of arranging the collection of prescription drugs and appliances would fall on carers and wardens. That would obviously be highly regrettable, and in some cases not even possible, given the strains and stresses on those organisations.
	Individual constituents have also made their unhappiness plain to me. Mrs. Stewart of Barcombe said:
	"Lloyds do an absolutely superb job and I wouldn't want to lose them. I don't know how I would get my prescriptions otherwise, especially 'repeat' prescriptions. The Lloyds van is in our street nearly every day of the week".
	Mrs. Stewart has lived in Barcombe for most of her life. She has makes the point that the Chailey centre has no practice nurse service, so even if it is possible to get there for the first prescription, repeat prescriptions are still an important issue for many of my constituents.
	The manager of the Nightingales residential care home for the elderly in Newick says:
	"For the last 10 years Lloyds pharmacy have offered us an excellent, efficient service. I have spoken to a number of our residents who are concerned about the impact it may have on their healthcare and like us feel that the service offered cannot be improved on".
	A trustee of the Grantham trust, in Grantham close, Chailey, which operates 24 warden-controlled flats for the elderly, has reported that 36 of the residents in those flats currently receive deliveries via the community pharmacy home delivery service and that the system works well for all concerned. The Leyden trust, also in Chailey, operates a residential home for six disabled adults and relies on the delivery service for the supply of pharmaceuticals. The trust says that it would be difficult to release a member of staff to go on regular trips to a pharmacy to collect prescription items, in view of the intensive level of care required by the residents.
	I would suggest that those are good medical reasons why the proposal causes such grave concern in my constituency and beyond. Indeed, a member of Fletching parish council, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), has also contacted me, writing:
	"I would make it clear that my Parish Council considered this matter at its last meeting and unanimously resolved to support Newick in its endeavours to resist any measures...that threatened the viability or existence of...a...valuable local resource".
	Chailey parish council also submitted a thorough letter to the appeal process in Harrogate, making the point that 60 per cent. of the current dispensing business is for patients outside Newick and that 340 post codes are included in the application.
	Chailey parish council has written to me to say that if the Newick community pharmacy were to close, residents would have to visit pharmacies in the surrounding towns, all of which are seven miles from the centre of Chailey. Interestingly, the council also notes that the Government's 2008 White Paper on pharmacies emphasises—rightly, I believe—the importance of the development of a wide range of community services in the local pharmacy. If this decision were to be allowed, it would seem to run contrary to the Government's direction of travel, which most people support because they want to see greater use of pharmacies in their locality.
	Unfortunately, that seems to run counter to some of the regulations, and I would welcome clarification from the Minister on this. I have dug out a similar case relating to an application made in 2000 in Robertsbridge, which is in the same primary care trust area. I understand that the 1992 regulations state that the committee
	"shall refuse an application to the extent that it is of the opinion that to grant it would prejudice the proper provision of general medical services or pharmaceutical services in any locality".
	That seems to be a fair criterion to apply to these applications.
	Department of Health annexes are also referred to. The title, in gobbledegook, is HSG(92)13.FPN560. Paragraph 6 on page 37 states:
	"The fact that the granting of an application could lead to a reduction in the level or standard of general medical or pharmaceutical service does not, of itself, constitute prejudice to proper provision".
	That is an important paragraph, because it seems to imply that, even if there is a diminution in service, that is not a reason in itself for rejection. That is from the 1992 regulations; it might well be that the 2005 regulations have overtaken those provisions. It would be helpful to learn from the Minister whether that is the case. However, if the regulations say that a facility for local people can be reduced from its present level if, for example, a doctor's surgery applies to dispense medicines, that cannot be consistent with the Government's direction of travel. It would be useful to get an update on that point.
	There is also uncertainty—perhaps it is welcome—as a result of responses that were received this week in another place. My constituent, Baroness Cumberledge, raised the matter with the Health Minister, Lord Darzi. The baroness is a doughty campaigner on these matters, and has a long history of activity in the health service. However, given her political allegiance, it is probably just as well that she does not have a vote at the general election. She asked Lord Darzi about these matters, and on 2 June he replied:
	"If a new pharmacy opens in a controlled locality, or if an area is no longer considered rural by the PCT, GPs are required to reduce their dispensing."
	In other words, the hierarchy that the Government appear to support—which I think is absolutely right—seems to place the GP dispensing process in a secondary position to pharmacies. The GP process seems to have been designed to fill gaps rather than to be a rival to the pharmacies. If that is the hierarchy that the Government support, I entirely agree with it, but it seems inconsistent with the regulations that I have just quoted.
	In a second answer to Baroness Cumberledge, Lord Darzi said:
	"The principle of GPs dispensing has historically been seen as an exceptional measure, normally where there may not be a convenient community pharmacy and patients have no choice but to travel a considerable distance to the nearest pharmacy."
	Again, I have no objection to that. No one wants to prevent patients from having access to pharmaceuticals if there are no chemists nearby. However, that is not the situation in Newick, where there is a chemist nearby that is well supported and provides a service that is second to none. Anything that threatens that provision cannot be in the interests of patients or of the health service generally.
	Lord Darzi went on to say that, in the
	"White Paper  Pharmacy in England: Building on Strengths—Delivering the Future we will be consulting on proposals making changes to the control of market entry for dispensing medicine that will examine options for improving services and patient access."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. WA13.]
	It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how that fits in, although I understand that this is not part of her portfolio at the Department of Health. I am trying to understand the Government's direction of travel. Do they see GPs as a back-up to the pharmacies, as I think they should, or as potential rivals who should—according to the 1992 regulations—be allowed to damage the interests of pharmacies? That important point needs to be clarified, but if the Minister cannot deal with it or with any of my other points on this occasion, it would be useful if she could help me to arrange a meeting with the relevant health Minister.
	I wrote to the family health service appeal unit in Harrogate on the basis of the narrow grounds on which I understand that the regulations allow appeals to be made. Some of the points that I have made to the Minister are fairly wide, but while I feel that account should be taken of those wider points, I see a case for rejecting the application even on the narrow grounds specified in the regulations.
	In my letter I said that the proposal, if enacted, would prejudice the proper provision of pharmaceutical services for people in the Newick locality, including nearby communities such as Chailey. I noted that consideration was given to the viability of the chemist's shop on the occasion of the Robertsbridge appeal. It was obvious to me that if that were taken into account, the case for allowing this application would disappear entirely. I hoped that the appeal committee would agree to undertake a proper economic assessment to establish whether the Newick chemist would be affected before making any irreversible decision on whether to allow the application.
	The decision was flawed in another respect. No consultation whatever was conducted with the parish councils, with the district council or with me. Indeed, I was not even notified. The process appears to have taken place behind closed doors, with no reference to the local community. That is contrary to the Government's stated views on public participation, which I am happy to support. Although the regulations may not have been formally overridden, I think that, in the spirit of the regulations, consultation should have taken place. Indeed, a specific power to allow such consultation has not been used, and for that reason alone I feel that the matter deserves further consideration. If the appeal committee does consider the issue further, as I imagine it will have to, I think that—particularly given the lack of consultation so far—it should do so by means of an oral hearing either in Newick or in Lewes, the county town, so that local people can have their say.
	Finally, let me return briefly to the issue of GPs' dispensing of pharmaceutical medicines. I understand that it was originally intended to benefit patients in areas where it was economically unfeasible for a chemist to operate. However, it seems to me—and I say this advisedly—to have become a money-spinner for some practices. I fear there is a danger that the narrow financial benefits to be gained by general practices will override the health benefits to the population at large. That is a wider problem, which the Government must try to straighten out.

Ann Keen: A patient can apply to their local PCT for their local medical practice to provide dispensing services where the patient has such a need. The practice seeks approval from the PCT, which is known as outline consent. Where a PCT receives such an application, it invites views from interested parties locally, including medical and pharmacy contractors and their representative bodies, and the local patient and public involvement forum, as was. Such bodies have now been replaced by the local involvement network. The PCT can also seek views from other interested public, consumer and community groups, but whether it does so is for it to decide. The minimum notice period within which representations need to be made to the PCT is 45 days, after which it reaches a decision on the application.
	Any such decision can be appealed to an independent body—the NHS Litigation Authority—by those who are statutorily entitled to make an appeal. In this instance, an appeal can be made by interested local contractors who made representations to the PCT. The right of appeal does not extend to the general public. I want to emphasise that the NHS Litigation Authority is independent; it is independent of the PCT, local contractors and local interests.
	Let me turn now to the situation in Newick. I am advised by my officials that the local GP practice applied to provide dispensing pharmaceutical services at its branch surgery in South Chailey. Details of the application were circulated to interested parties locally, but I understand that that did not include the local patient and public involvement forum. I feel for the hon. Gentleman, because he was not consulted, and sympathise with the points he raised. The decision is ultimately made by the PCT, but I accept that the provision of new dispensing facilities is a change that the PCT should consider in relation to its obligations to consult. I understand that this was a genuine mistake on the part of East Sussex Downs and Weald PCT which, in the circumstances, is to be regretted. However, that is what happened, and apologies should be made.
	The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have received assurance that the PCT has amended its process to ensure that the local involvement network and the local parish council will, in future, be notified about such applications as a matter of course. I understand that the PCT subsequently approved the application, and that details of the approval were notified to interested parties on 30 April.
	I understand that details of that approval have caused widespread local concern about the future effect on the existing pharmacy in Newick; indeed, Baroness Cumberlege raised the issue recently in the other place and she has tabled a question about it this week. Her championing of such issues is well known in the health service.
	I understand that an appeal against the PCT decision was last week lodged with the appeal unit of the NHS Litigation Authority. The appeal unit has yet to decide whether to hold an oral hearing, as the hon. Gentleman is seeking today. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the actual details of this case, but I would like to outline the usual procedure that is followed.
	The first stage in all appeals is for the appeal unit to invite written views from those entitled to make representations. I understand that it will do so as soon as possible. The appeal unit will then decide whether to hold an oral hearing. If it does, it will convene an expert appeal panel. This will afford the opportunity to those contractors who have made representations to put their case across at the hearing.
	I would stress here that the decision whether to hold an oral hearing, and who to invite to present evidence, will be entirely one for the appeal unit. This is not a matter in which Ministers can or should intervene. However, I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns in seeking an oral hearing.
	I am assured by the NHS Litigation Authority that as soon as a date has been reached on whether to hold an oral hearing, the authority will let the hon. Gentleman know. But I can tell the House that pending the appeal, the application to provide dispensing services in South Chailey is on hold. In light of that, I hope that the House will agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to give an opinion on this matter. In due course, the authority will hear and weigh carefully all the evidence it needs to come to its own independent conclusion. That is the right way for these things to be determined.
	I heard very clearly from the hon. Gentleman how highly regarded is the current provision of pharmaceutical services in Newick. I hope that we can all recognise and agree that we want every pharmacy and dispensing practice to provide excellent services, which can make an enormous contribution and real difference to our local communities.
	Our White Paper makes it clear that we want to see pharmacy services as a whole move forward, whether in urban or rural areas, and irrespective of who provides them, to a position in which excellence receives its just rewards. Our pharmacy service has much to offer over the next few years, and the expectations of patients, consumers and the communities that it serves will change greatly. The pharmacy service will be at the heart of that community, providing excellence in service quality and delivery.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.